Windows team manager Alex Simons gives the public a taste of file management in Windows 8. (Source: MSDN/Microsoft)

The new client consolidates your mess of Windows into a single neat GUI pane. (Source: MSDN/Microsoft)

You can now get details galore on copy speed and more. (Source: MSDN/Microsoft)

There's also a new interface for selectively resolving file conflicts. (Source: MSDN/Microsoft)

All sorts of new additions should reduce pain and clutter when copying files with Win 8

Anyone
who's ever had to prepare for a reinstall of their Windows OS -- be it to
prepare for an upgrade, or to try to solve technical
issues -- is familiar with the pain of slow copies, dealing with at
times confusing name collisions, and multiple cluttering Windows.

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) is very aware of these issues (in recent years
it's increasingly collected remote telemetry data from volunteers to determine
what's going wrong and right in Windows). And in Windows 8, its plan is to offer a
dramatically improved file transfer experience.

In a post to the Microsoft Developer Network "Building Windows" blog and a corresponding video, Windows engineering team manager Alex Simons shows off the new
features.

When executing multiple simultaneous copies, gone are the multiple windows of
yore. You now get a single comprehensive panel. Each transfer
element offers the option of cancelling or pausing the transfer. For
example, if you want to speed up a specific transfer, you can pause your other
transfers so the system resources will focus on the targeted transaction.

The GUI element also has an option to provide detailed information on each
transaction, including an eye-catching chart of the transfer speed. The
features in the new pane closely resemble those you find in modern browsers for
tracking downloads -- and it's a good thing.

Rounding out the improvements is a new option for handling conflicts. In
addition to the replace all and skip all categories found in Windows 7, there's
now an option "Choose the files to keep in the destination folder".
This allows for users to select the copy they most want. This
allows you to selectively replace only some files in the destination folder.
You can even double click to open files for further examination.

Microsoft says the new tools will be a valuable addition to Windows 8 as 20
percent of file transfers in previous versions of Windows take longer than 2
minutes to complete. Further, about 1 in 18 jobs fails, either due to a
network interruption or by user cancellation.

The company also acknowledges it's estimates of the remaining time to copy
haven't been the best in the past, making it the butt of some jokes in
that regard. Mr. Simons writes, "We’re anticipating that many of you
are going to want to know what we’ve done to improve the accuracy of the
estimated time remaining for a copy to complete. (This has been the source of
some pretty funny jokes over the years)."

Microsoft says while approximate 1 out of 200 Windows users use a
dedicated copying client -- like TeraCopy, FastCopy, and Copy Handler --
whose abilities may surpass the new additions, for most this will be the
first relief from the previous hassle-prone copying.

The team is also working to reduce dialogues labeled by users as
"redundant" or "annoying", such as the confirmation of
dropping stuff in the recycling bin, or the confirmation of merging folders.

While I think tabs would be a nice touch for those who want them, I don't think everyone shares the same desire that you do. I for one actually do not want (or at least, do not want to use) tabs in epxlorer for one simple reason. When Windows 7 first introduced the new taskbar, I immediately reverted it back to "never combine," the reason being that I like to be able to see every folder I have open at once. In a moments notice, I want to see each folder in my taskbar and know immediately where to access it. If tabs existed in explorer, it would only make me have to browse each widnow to find where the tab I want is, since the information is no longer readily available as a taskbar button with a title. Not to say tabs have no practical purposes, but this is one feature that I don't think is really that important.

This is one thing I never understood. You can just CLICK the Folder icon button and all the folders that are open with names (and visual aid, if you wish) will pop up. I find this more ideal than filling up the taskbar with different folders. And when you set it to "never combine", you risk mixing in other programs (browsers, word documents, etc) into the mix, making it harder to find what you are looking for.

As a bonus, it can do copy-verify (instead of just copy like Windows does). And if any file fails to copy, it won't abort in the middle of a huge copy leaving you wondering what's been copied and what hasn't. It'll finish off the rest of the copy, then present you with a list of which files didn't copy, giving you the option to try them (and only them) again.

I don't really like the simpler interface of the Windows 7 Explorer. I prefer the Windows XP Explorer interface with the button bar (copy, paste, cut, etc...) and the status bar which specifies how many bytes each folder occupies.

The only way to find out how many bytes are in each Windows 7 folder is to right-click on it and choose properties. Apparently, Microsoft has simplified Explorer to try to appeal to everyone and has satisfied no one.

BTW, I really haven't done any searches yet, but is there any way in Windows 7 to bring back the Windows XP Explorer button and status bars?

quote: The only way to find out how many bytes are in each Windows 7 folder is to right-click on it and choose properties.

Not entirely true. You can also mouse over it to show size. I prefer to list files in Details View and display the Size attribute right next to the filename. There's some other customizations in Organize > Folder and search options

I disagree that no one is happy. I love the new Explorer, especially Libraries and Breadcrumbs.

Actually there's a 3rd party app that does what you want with Explorer buttons. I can't vouch for it, but it might be worth a shot if you don't like using keyboard shortcuts for Cut/Copy/Paste.

Yes, both stop a file transfer in progress. It takes two seconds to drag and drop again to resume the process. Given the ease of use of a PC with a mouse and keyboard shortcuts, people are getting lazier and lazier.

Of course you could be really good and create a .BAT file or even do all file transfers over command prompt.

There's also common sense. If I am going to be moving large amounts of data I kind of schedule my high resource use AROUND such a move. But that's just common sense. Technology doesn't really teach that.

Oh, so when you copy a 4.5GB ISO file over a slow network connection, clicking stop at 90% is the same thing? Last I checked, recopying 100% of 4.5GB is a whole lot longer than finishing the last 10%.

Your "common sense" statement also doesn't make any sense in any scenario that isn't managed. Ever been to a LAN where you have groups of people all transferring things all the time? Network bandwidth gets thrashed quite heavily if you don't throttle it properly, and nobody wants to stop their 10 minute transfers half way through to let the other person finish his first. Pausing, on the other hand is a completely acceptable solution. I seriously cannot believe you are naive enough to believe there is no use for pausing, or even that you think stopping and pausing are even remotely the same thing.

I was actually referring to a LAN party, not just a "LAN" connection. You would be retarded to setup FTP connections between people that are going to leave in 12-16 hours, not to mention rebooting and getting new IP addresses. Even on a gigabit network running at full speed you're talking about 40-45 seconds per ISO. Add in anyone wanting to do anything at all on their hard drive, copy a second file, or use the network any further, it will substantially increase. Often the file transfers are much larger, and will easily take 10 minutes each if poorly coordinated. And when people want things quickly, compromises must be made.

quote: I was actually referring to a LAN party, not just a "LAN" connection. You would be retarded...

1. LAN party? Oh, illegal sharing of games. I see. Yeah, I buy my games as you should too. So should all your LAN party friends.2. I stopped reading after your "R" word. Grow up and don't resort to childish name calling in a weak attempt to "win" an argument.

1. Was just a single example of many situations where "pause" is applicable.

2. In other words you realize my second point was right so you use an excuse as pathetic as pretending that "childish name calling" is a valid reason to stop reading a post. Not sure what kind of "high class" people you must hang out with to never hear someone say that word. I apologize if that offended you or something.

I was backing up some data files across our network in the lab yesterday and noticed that in 3 days we generate 10,900 files on one piece of equipment. It isn't so easy to cancel that somewhere in the middle then try to figure out where it stopped and where to begin again when there are multiple levels of embedded folders in the mix. Pause would be much better than cancel when I try to move a months worth of those files.

1. Use better means of backup, such as a USB drive.2. 10,900 files shouldn't exist on a local computer. On a company network, those files should be on a file server where they are backed up.3. FTP would still be quicker with smaller files. You can also stop and resume FTP transfers.

Really, you all are making rather poor excuses for the NEED of a pause button on a Windows file transfer.

I develop enterprise web applications and only one of my eclipse workspaces has about 9, 000 files in it. Aaand this has been checked out of an SVN repository, so it does also reside on a kind of a file server. Imagine if I want to copy one (or more) such workspace(s) to a USB drive, it takes between 15-20 min. What do you have to say about such a scenario?

It still requires clicking on the folder icon to view them though. I like to be able, at any point in time, to look at the taskbar and know everything I have open, and that includes more than just explorer. I often have multiple instances of explorer, visual studio, adobe reader, etc open all at once, switching between them very often. It simply increases my productivity to always know where every window is, and this is my #1 complaint about OSX and its dock menu, which cripples me in the same way.

Wow talk about unnecessary clutter though. One of the best things about Windows 7 was the new taskbar and how it removed the unnecessary crap and how hovering over a single application/folder icon will show you a preview of every single instance open (not to mention the preview isnt static but active so you can actually see if it is doing something). This allows me to easily see, without maximizing the item, what instance I want to pull up or what is going on with a particular instance.

And you want to go back to the dark ages?? As a fellow developer I just don't understand this.

Well it's really the same fundamental problem I have with OSX's interface. I cannot look at the screen and know what windows I have open. It takes extra work. I have never found myself "sifting" through files, windows, etc. I've always known exactly where everything was.

quote: This allows me to easily see, without maximizing the item, what instance I want to pull up or what is going on with a particular instance.

This is my point. I can already do this without even so much as moving the mouse. I just have to glance down at my taskbar and I know already what each thing is. I like this for the same reason that web browsers have tabs and now just one big button that says "All tabs here" with previews as you hover over. It makes it easy to find the one you want with NO extra work. To each his own, but I just think that the old taskbar was more productive. Sure I can have as many open windows without it becoming more cluttered, but I don't have to perform extra work or take extra time to find what I'm looking for.

Some people I support has so many applications and folders open that you have to scroll down on the start menu in XP to see them. Also without grouping you end up with the application buttons getting smaller and smaller losing the immediate visibility of the description. How is that helping you out. You don't even have to click to see the windows in Windows 7, all you have to do is mouse over it. Alt-Tab will also show the window, and windows-tab (which shows a much larger side angle view).

I mean, not that I feel like I have to justify my work flow, but needless to say, if I choose it, it probably is helping my out quite a bit, no?

Again, it boils down to preference. I don't want to have to click to mouse over to have an effect of viewing a window to narrow down which one I want, I can get that narrowed down just fine. I do expand the taskbar to two lines, which is done a lot better in Windows 7 than in XP if that sheds any light.

If the taskbar does become too full I think the applications that have high amounts of windows do group, but usually they are autosized in the taskbar just fine. The top row doesn't have to match the bottom size, its not a uniform grid.

Just saying, it enabled me to be way more productive than the extra clicks and mousing over just to determine what window I want. Also, I have two monitors so more things are up at once, so thats a factor too I suppose. Couldn't work with only one ever again!

Not saying it doesn't help, and not that you have to justify your work flow to a complete stranger on the interwebs but because you chose it doesn't mean it makes it more productive for you. Some times things are quicker and easier, but take a little time to get used to, but lots of people once they get comfortable with a system no matter how simple the learning curve is they refuse to go through it. Sometimes people just need to leave their comfort shell once in a while.

Also this may not apply to you but most people are visual people and reading the folder descriptions would actually take more time to find the folder they want that way then mousing over to a spot that doesn't change and seeing each fold and moving the mouse a mere inch or two and selecting the folder they want. It also makes it easier to close the windows you no longer need.

In regards to your comment before this one, I can understand that if people really have enough windows open that you need to scroll on the taskbar, then grouping them becomes highly beneficial. Once you have that many windows, it becomes unproductive regardless of how you organize it.

But more to the point, I would just like to point out that I actually use both methods. On my desktop at home, I use the never combine option to show the text labels for reasons I've mentioned above. On my several year old laptop, though, it has limited horizontal screen space so I actually use the normal layout, since it gets crowded quite quickly. I have used it quite extensively too, and as long as my goal is not productivity, I don't mind it at all, and it works. But as a person who has used both a decent amount, I find not combining them is far more productive.

I remember the window buttons by their position in the taskbar and grouping doesn't go well with this at all for me. I always turn it off.

I never consider my numerous windows in the taskbar as a clutter. I mean, if they are there, I need them for some reason.At my workstation there are usually around 30 windows open - there's plenty of space to list them all at once on a vertical taskbar.At home I rarely hit 10.

Since there's a certain order in the taskbar (oldest windows are first), for me it's very easy to navigate and pick windows quickly.

Anyway, I'd say that "full view" and "grouped view" are both necessary - to each his own. There's nothing outdated or uber-modern in any of the approaches.

"you risk mixing in other programs (browsers, word documents, etc) into the mix, making it harder to find what you are looking for."

I don't think so... I run this exact same setup at work and, like in WinXP, they are grouped by application still.

So, All explorer windows are grouped. How is that mixed? I can't even rearrange them out of grouping if I wanted to?

To each their own. At home I have a SLIGHTLY different setup (Big Taskbar items instead of small) but I enjoy not having all of the applications items appear as a single item that I then have to click to see a list of things. Its just not that useful for some people personally.

It's more for the people who enjoy less clutter, which is good for those that enjoy that.

quote: having pause on file transfers is great. I remember useing it twelve years ago in MacOS 8 , which is kind of funny now I think about it

If you want to hear something funny look how long it's taken OSX to get the ability to make a window/app full screen, or being able to resize a window from any corner. Something Windows 95 had, 16 years ago. Whats even more funny though is that the full screen app feature in Lion still dont even work as good as the decade old XP. You can only have an app full screen on the first monitor, and it renders any other monitors connected completely useless by doing this.

And having tabs in explorer would be plain stupidity for so many reasons.

Ever since MS introduced “Index everything everything everything” in Win7, my file management experience has been unriched. I work on 15 Win7 computers, and they are basically All-Indexing / All-the-time. They are constantly indexing everything they can grab. File searches, file copies, file moves, well, they can’t get to the actual work until they spend many minutes indexing EVERYTHING associated with what I want to do. Often they never return from the indexing part of the scheme. I’ve tried to turn all every piece of indexing I can find, but the solid solution eludes me. I work on many many XP boxes, and they are much much much better.So for Win7 I search for files with third-party, and for copies or moves, I just start the project and go to lunch.I also am pretty sure that if I want to copy or move six big directories, it is faster to select ALL of them and do ONE copy or move, than to do six individual tasks. So I guess I miss the point(s) of this article.

I was hoping it was going to say that they realized a benefit of not spending most of the day on indexing stuff, freeing up some time for actual computer work, and they will be making file management less painful. But I expect the index “feature” of file management will still be there to plague us in Win8.

Ever since MS introduced “Index everything everything everything” in Win7, my file management experience has been unriched. I work on 15 Win7 computers, and they are basically All-Indexing / All-the-time. They are constantly indexing everything they can grab. File searches, file copies, file moves, well, they can’t get to the actual work until they spend many minutes indexing EVERYTHING associated with what I want to do. Often they never return from the indexing part of the scheme. I’ve tried to turn off every piece of indexing I can find, but the solid solution eludes me. I work on many many XP boxes, and they are much much much better.So for Win7 I search for files with third-party, and for copies or moves, I just start the project and go to lunch.I also am pretty sure that if I want to copy or move six big directories, it is faster to select ALL of them and do ONE copy or move, than to do six individual tasks. So I guess I miss the point(s) of this article.

I was hoping it was going to say that they realized a benefit of not spending most of the day on indexing stuff, freeing up some time for actual computer work, and they will be making file management less painful. But I expect the index “feature” of file management will still be there to plague us in Win8.

I hear youIndexing and search services are among the first I turn off after fresh install. To me they read "Make your hard drive slower" services.Search was slow but usable in Win98, now its unusable and makes the computer slow all the time.

One file operation allows disk to put out 100MB/sectwo - drops to 60MB/sec totalhow about 10? You are lucky if it still seeps at 1MB/sec TOTAL speed. Do they REALLY need to run all at once, suffocating each other?

the indexing also doesn't work properly anyway. if you have indexing enabled, plug in a new drive (from a friend or whatever) and search for something - it doesn't find it. it just looks at the index and nothing else.

I do agree with you on this count that searching should be improved to search unindexed devices second. It is a shame that they don't do that which I find obvious.

I do however disagree with others that it slows down your pc. Indexing only occurs when IDLE, aka NOT USING YOUR COMPUTER. so no, I have never thought modern indexing has slowed me down nor noticed it doing so in resource monitor even after adding fresh drives.

What the hell sort of shitty old computers are you guys running? I've set up dozens of new Win7 computers for people and never turning indexing off. If it slows their hard drives down at all, it is not in a way that is noticable.

Yeah, I remember when indexing used to be the bane of the hard drive and reduced computers to a grinding halt of uselessness. But so lnog as you've got a modern hard drive running on a modern interface, those days are long gone.

If they weren't, I'd have tons of people screaming at me that their computers are too slow to use and I'd quickly turn indexing off for my own sanity. The fact that this isn't happening tells me that indexing is not the problem. you've either got conifguration or hardware issues.

I second this. WindowsXP indexing for 'Windows Search' was a total nightmare, and well my Vista experience was relatively short lived, but Windows 7 is never ever EVER slow for me. Never.

I leave the indexing service as is and I'm pleased always. I will say I prefer the configurability of Windows XP file search better than the too-simple appearing search box in Vista/7 but performance wise, I'm just not relating to anything you're talking about and im kind of floored that someone else even posted agreeing.

quote: Ever since MS introduced “Index everything everything everything” in Win7, my file management experience has been unriched. I work on 15 Win7 computers, and they are basically All-Indexing / All-the-time.

It was actually introduced in Windows Vista. And it's not everything. It's just data in your profile folder under C:\Users.

Historically, Explorer did not use multiple processes (and it still does not by default) due to Windows' laughable IPC performance. File copying was always restricted to a single thread, and this is the "secret" behind third-party copying utilities- they are multithreaded, or may even use a separate process for each copy. So besides ripping off Nautilus and Finder with the UI, it sounds like they've finally been able to come up with a modern, non-retarded architecture for Explorer.

Great work guys, everyone else kinda solved that problem a decade or more ago.

Yeah, I'd be happy to see throughput on the OSX file transfer window as well - as a geek thing, anyway, since it's not like it makes moving it any faster. The compare-on-replace is nice, though it would be much nicer integrated with QuickLook! It's surprising this hasn't shown up on Explorer or Finder before now, but then both companies have always managed to put as little effort into their file browsers as possible. :/

But overall, they could do almost nothing and still improve on the traditional: "-29123214348273498 minutes remaining" dialog from XP. Now that was always promising to see. Lol.

I've been forced to use Teracopy for copying items to USB sticks or other devices becuase it is impossible within the standard windows GUI to copy multiple items from different folders at once, or to add items to a ongoing transfer. I would hope they include that functionality in Win 8.

Another thing that needs overhaul is the "undo" button. It needs to have some kind of drop down menu of recent actions to undo like in Word.

If anyone thought file management was any bit "painful" in previous windows versions, maybe Microsoft should not be looking for software solutions to the problem but instead should branch into medicine, psychiatry and full brain transplants.Seriously, WTF is wrong with people these days?

What's wrong with them, is that they have all started using smartphones far more than actual computers in their daily lives. iPhones and iClones do things instantly thanks to the memory being flash based and the OS optimised for the device, so people have gotten used to not having to wait around. With the rise of Apple, people have again taken notice of how to do things simply without a massively complex interface which puts off 99% of people who aren't techies.

Additionally, even for more technical users file transfers from multiple sources is still a pain with unreliable time approximations, no indications of where bottlenecks lie and multiple windows cluttering things up. Few but the most technical understand the nitty gritty differences between a copy and a move, and they don't really need to know. A computer is just a tool, first and foremost, for most people to let them browse the web and handle email, store photos etc.

Full marks to MS for actually using the data we all send back from Windows to improve their OS. I would like to think they would innovate even without their competitors breathing down their necks, but hmm...IE6 and WiMo6 say differently.

forgot to rant also about copy and paste. copy a TB of files to a drive which has folders of the same name. does it check 1st and ask what you want to do? no. doesn't ask you to merge folders, rename etc etc etc. it starts to paste the files/folders. 10 mins in you'll get a popup saying source/destination are the same and get asked what you want to do. great - expect i'm in bed and wake up 6 hours later to that same popup.

scan through 1st and ask me what i want to do so i can go to bed and have it all done by the time i wake up.

If MS makes Windows open source now it has potential for survival... This is the "new" age where developers more and more rely and operate purely in open source environment. Even small things like getting a dedicated host at say a "hosting" company running linux is always 1. faster 2. more secure 3. way cheaper THAN windows server. The only issue is that consumer population is either osx / or / windows. What's funny is both kernels now employ linux modules, while osx runs on linux entirely. But software companies, gaming companies and other consumer targeting corps are not open source either and run only on osx or windows, unless you have a monster machine with virtual machines and patience to make all drivers work, which still is insanely difficult when it gets to graphic drivers and other enhancement hardware. But then again microsoft could do just exactly what unix / linux does with free editions and customized os's for corporate use that do have cost for licenses. Makes a lot of sense to me, because then they'd still be able to run all soft that has been developed such as adobe suite, not really lose much money on consumers due to pirating and sell licenses to distributors such as dell, sony, lenovo etc, corporate environments. Greed and dumbitity is the only explanation why windows is still not open source, and it will die i hope if it remains this way - at least just because their MSIE is just c.rap that pisses of every web developer on earth, even ones that got .net asp certified i bet

Actually that's a Bundt cake that gets the icing and should be "butt of the joke." I think Jason may have been thinking of brunt of the joke but settled for bunt. As long as no one serves up butt cake,...with icing,...I'm okay. :P

"has been called "revolutionary" by some Microsoft team members and the company's "riskiest" product by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer"

Talk about a lot of hot air. And combing file transfer dialogs is their major new feature?? Should have had this long ago. So MS fixes a couple bugs..i mean features.. and and they have a revolutionary new product. Give me a break. They are just scared to death of Linux and Max OS. And they should be as Windows is inferior. Try them all and you quickly realize Windows is bottom rung.

Looks like MS is expanding their "shaft the consumer" mentality (that Apple also enjoys) by releasing this as Win8, instead of fixing the mentioned problems with Win7, and should be releasing these updates as a Service Pack, instead of an entirely new OS.

Yep. They have been doing it for quite some time. I remember being forced off Windows 2000 because a (Microsoft) game no longer supported it. Then to XP, then to Vista 64bit, and now to Win7 64bit.

I think MS are going to have to get used to the idea that Win 8 might not have great sales at first. I certainly wont be upgrading to it for a very long time. I've got an attractive, stable OS now, with DX11 and lots of nice little features. It's going to take something pretty epic to make me want to upgrade, and from what I've seen, win8 doesn't have anything truly special.

This is a nice little feature, not a big deal though. I am all for it, but I think the average person who finds using Windows to be difficult, will not get much benefit from this feature. And the average person who is happy using Windows already, will not have had trouble copying files anyway.

But still, it's progress... and I'm glad for that. I use Win7 64bit at the moment and I love it. I use all the new features it has, and they do make life easier and happier overall.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007